Author
Topic: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2] (Read 128270 times)

The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology. Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?

Agreed.

Too often, people generalize about Canon pricing based on one example – the higher cost of the 5DIII in comparison to the D800. But, that was an anomaly. Canon and Nikon traditionally price their comparable models at nearly identical price points.

They do so because that's what the market demands. A $2,500 7DII would be hard-pressed to compete against a $1,800 D400.

Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern?

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left). Canon knew they could charge a premium because their target audience needs the competitive edge that the clean high ISOs gives them.

The D800 sacrificed high-ISO performance for high resolution. Unfortunately, there simply isn't a large professional base of photographers who gain any competitive edge from a high resolution sensor (emphasis on "large" professional base). It's a nice feature and gives some bragging rights to a company that has been perceived as being behind the curve on resolution for several years. That's not to say that some photographers don't need high resolution, it's just that the target audience is much smaller and the competitive advantages to be gained from the high resolution are much less significant.

I don't understand why people always point to the 5DIII, which was an exception, when every other DSLR Canon makes fits nicely within the rule of consistent pricing with their competitors. Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left).

I disagree here. The 5D mk3 was $500 more as it is $500 more camera: a professional level product in every way. The original 5D and later mk2 were not. Many pros eschewed the 1Ds mk3 in favour of the much cheaper, lighter 5Dmk2. Canon responded to demand and produced a pro grade 5D.

The D800 on the other hand is aimed fair and square at the amateur market, and it is less $$$ because it is a cheaper, less substantial product. 36 mp, a marketing game that didn't come off. They had to bring out the D600 pretty sharpish.

Wouldn't I just love to have a an APS-C version of my 1D X. Same size, same battery, same control layout, same number of pixels and same image quality. I've dreamed of this camera. Canon could build one if they had a mind to......

The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology. Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?

Agreed.

Too often, people generalize about Canon pricing based on one example – the higher cost of the 5DIII in comparison to the D800. But, that was an anomaly. Canon and Nikon traditionally price their comparable models at nearly identical price points.

They do so because that's what the market demands. A $2,500 7DII would be hard-pressed to compete against a $1,800 D400.

Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern?

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left). Canon knew they could charge a premium because their target audience needs the competitive edge that the clean high ISOs gives them.

The D800 sacrificed high-ISO performance for high resolution. Unfortunately, there simply isn't a large professional base of photographers who gain any competitive edge from a high resolution sensor (emphasis on "large" professional base). It's a nice feature and gives some bragging rights to a company that has been perceived as being behind the curve on resolution for several years. That's not to say that some photographers don't need high resolution, it's just that the target audience is much smaller and the competitive advantages to be gained from the high resolution are much less significant.

I don't understand why people always point to the 5DIII, which was an exception, when every other DSLR Canon makes fits nicely within the rule of consistent pricing with their competitors. Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000

You are assuming Canon will leave the 7D II in the same target demographic bucket as the 7D. I'd point to the various statements Canon has made about how they want to do something "special" with the 7D II. That hints to me that it might end up more like the 5D III...an "anomaly" as you called it, than the same old deal...the "as cheap as possible specs with a high frame rate" deal.

I am not sure that is a safe assumption. The 7D II could very well come in like the 5D III (at least as it is in your view, as a specialized part...personally, I think the 5D III is an amazing general purpose FF camera, as it fits the bill for just about everything and anything with the sole exception being sunset photos where you get the sun, the brightly lit sky, and all the deep shadow foreground detail all in a single shot), and be effectively an APS-C 1D X, filling a niche for a specific subset of people...sports/wildlife/birds...rather than just being a cheapish APS-C "pro" camera.

Personally, I would rather spend $2000 or so on something that DID have 61pt AF, 10fps (and dual UDMA 7 CF), a 24.4mp APS-C, and a worthwhile IQ boost over ANY other APS-C sensor from Canon...something where NR works more on the level it does for the 5D III, rather than how it didn't so much for the 7D (Topaz DeNoise 5 definitely improves things...but it would be better if you could just clean up noise on the 7D II like you can on a 5D III or even better, 1D X photo).

You are assuming Canon will leave the 7D II in the same target demographic bucket as the 7D.

This is a safe assumption to make, IMO.

To put it another way: if the 7DII is the 1DIV successor, what will be the 7D successor?

This is a rhetorical question .Like I said, I don't see the 7DII morphing into a different class of camera.

Quote

I'd point to the various statements Canon has made about how they want to do something "special" with the 7D II.

What Canon actually said was that the 7DII would "evolve into new territory".There are different ways to interpret that but I wouldn't read too much into it. Just consider that when the 5DII was announced, its video feature was considered 'revolutionary'.So, now that Canon is talking 'evolution', I wouldn't hold my breath for a big departure from the current concept.

Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000

Completely agree

Maybe, maybe not - I don't think the 70d price is a sufficient indicator because here Canon don't have a choice, they have to counter the very competent d7100, even though the Canon's dual af tech is unique while Nikon very likely has the better af system. With a potential 7d2 Canon has much more freedom to act.

There's no reason to believe that the 7DII product positioning will change compared to that of the current 7D.

There is one reason: At the time of the original 7d there was the aps-h 1d4 with more reach than a ff, now there isn't. If Canon also wants to target the former 1d4 customers they could go for more quality & more $$$.

To put it another way: if the 7DII is the 1DIV successor, what will be the 7D successor? This is a rhetorical question .

I'll answer it anyway :-p ... a successor of the 7d1 is the 70d with about the same af system and some gimmicks, just as they split up the 5d2 into a higher end successor (5d3) and a reduced cost version (6d).